Even if you allow that the project will cost NASA some money, it's well spent. More interest and participation means that people might vote more space-friendly congressmen into office, which might increase the budget. Aside from just being a good thing to do, it may also be financially shrewd.
My reply to your earlier copy of this post was legitimate. But posting it twice is such a ridiculous troll that it deserves a trollish reply: While I truly do like linux (RHCE, and use it at home/office, etc.) I also like FreeBSD. We're rolling out FreeBSD on all of our border servers (mail, dns, ftp, etc.) because it's faster, and more secure. It's not dying, no matter how big an ass you make of yourself. Shout it as loud and as long as you like, I don't think it's going to "die." It may be dwindling; but that often happens to things when the public becomes less discriminating.
This keeps getting said... and said... and said. Who knows, perhaps it will someday happen. I hope not. FreeBSD is a VERY capable system. It has a nice footprint, nice performance, and nice security features. It has a certain purity to it that I wish linux had. It isn't trying to be everything to everyone. It might be that it's suffering because of this. Despite continual predictions of its demise, however, new versions keep showing up, which gives me hope. I just wish we didn't have to bash it every time it showed up in a story. What's the point of that?
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias
on
Carnivore To Die?
·
· Score: 1
Without wanting to sound as if I'm supporting the liberal democrats, I think something needs to be pointed out here. We have made it a national pastime to blame new administrations for failures they inherit from previous administrations. Like it or not, there's a learning curve to all of the top positions in an administration that seems to last in earnest for about 6 months. Janet Reno didn't plan the raid in Waco, or even the response. She deferred to people with tactical training and experience. Remember, she got that job because she's an attorney, not a commando. She simply signed off on things as they came by. That may have been unwise; but if you actually do look at the evidence, it appears to be more a case of her deferring to her "experts" than of some evil plot.
The original poster is taking a bit of a beating on this subject; but I have to say that I couldn't agree more. Most of the vocal slashdot crowd lacks any ability to draw reasonable limits on anything. I wish life were that simple "censhorship bad!"; but the fact is that you have to censor your kids. To say that nothing proves anything emotionally damages your kids is not far from saying that any kid should be exposed to anything that comes along of any kind. Come on. We're smarter people than that. It's so basic and elemental, and obvious when you have a child. Let's chuck the black/white idealism of the issue for a moment and look at reality. The amount of censorship, and the type, change with your child. As they grow they become more capable of understanding certain aspects of life. Some of those things will happen sooner than you would think, some later. Take, for instance, the porn debate going on in this thread. Some are saying "What's the big deal if your 11 year-old sees two people screwing? Big deal." For some children, you may be right; but I would prefer to discuss sex with her before she goes and sees a porn movie which depicts sex as nothing more than an evening's entertainment. If I try to describe it after, I have an awful hard task to make my spoken arguments compete with the graphic visuals of the movie. Especially when the porn is available 24/7, and I'm only available when I'm not working. Let's get real, most of raising your child could be construed as censorship in one form or another: "Don't touch that. No no. Don't go in there. Sweetheart, when you're a little older..." It's been that way since long before computers.
Tempestdata is correct. If I've expended time, energy, and resources (including money), why shouldn't I try to keep the employee? I don't mean by chaining them to their desk; but it may just be a financial reality that I can't afford to pay them what they guy across town can, and would rather not have the new employee "bought" away now that I've spent some of the fewer resources I have training and nurturing them. Dancclark, don't act like the workers are all altruistic angels who suffer as slaves beaten down by the man. That's just not the whole picture of reality. If I'm a decent boss, and I treat you well (including a decent salary, and training to further you), why can't I expect a little loyalty. And why can't I take such simple steps as blurring your face on television to keep the guys with deeper pockets from purchasing you, after I've made you what you are (assuming, of course, that I actually have made you what you are)?
Why is it good if a hacker/cracker can use technicalities of the law to get away with something wrong/immoral; but bad if the FBI uses technicalities of the law to accomplish something just? Isn't this the way we'd rather have the FBI behave? I think so. It's more public/reviewable than some other tactics.
This is an age old question that has actually been around longer than computers have. The answer is that almost anything (tech/reading/science/auto mechanics) can make you more intelligent if it is used in an educational manner. The opposite is also true. All the mensa primers in the world won't help a kid who doesn't use them in an educational way. As for the comment about late 70's, early 80's geeks now being smarter and the heads of international corporations, there are a lot of international corps. headed by decidedly non-technical people. Intelligence presents itself in many different ways. It isn't a "if you're tech, your smart/ if you're not, you're less than smart" kind of proposition. It's all about how you do the things you do. There is just as much intellectual stimulation in the natural world as there is on the internet. Don't confuse information for intelligence.
Give the guy a break. He's trying to make a living. Don't any of the rest of us have real jobs? Of course we do. I've used a lot of open source/GPL'ed stuff at work that was inferior to commercial products because it was free. He's got a point. And even if you disagree with his point, it doesn't mean you have to villify him. Geez. Are we that immature?
I agree. I recently e-mailed one of my senators about a senate resolution regarding computer security. I got a lucid and obviously singular response. It wasn't a form letter, and though I'm sure the signature at the bottom was automated, I at least felt as if he or somebody representative of him had responded. I think it's disingenuous to say that they're ignoring their constituents who e-mail them.
Look. I'm all for open-sourcing almost anything. But I fly an airplane that often uses gps as it's primary method of navigation; and I'm afraid I just don't want you anywhere near it. It's real. I truly am moving 200 knots, 2 miles up; and losing my navigational equipment can be a bonafide crisis. I don't want any screwball hacker fscking up the system. You don't have any right to impact my life that way. So just back down from this one.
School is used generically and is accepted to mean any educational institution. A University and College are generally used interchangeably as well, being your "place that can grant degrees," though I'm sure some anal-retentive slashdotter will have to elaborate on that for you. An undergraduate university would be one that offers only a bachelor's degree, as opposed to masters, phd, etc. A State School as used in the interview, refers to a University which is funded in large part, by the state. Many states have a policy, for instance, that a state resident is guaranteed acceptance to a state university, regardless of their performance on the entrance-type exams we use in the U.S. The thought is that you can educate the local population, and they will remain in the area, and contribute, etc. High School is the 4-year school preceding Collegiate studies. Attendance at high school is generally mandatory, at least to the age of 16, where university studies are, of course, entirely voluntary, unless you want a real job, etc.
Hope this helps.
The only thing that really bothers me about RMS is this little thing of: If you don't absolutely agree with me, you're not a "thinking" person. He seems to think that anybody with a different opinion is unintelligent. At the same time, he seems to spend more time arguing semantics than anything substantive. Maybe I'm just popping off because I'm a little tired of it; but does anybody see RMS ever so slowly slipping toward irrelevance? That would be a shame. He's given a lot, and has a lot to offer.
That you've had so much trouble getting help from the Linux community. It sometimes makes me sick, the way we treat people. You're getting some good advice from the replies to your post, so just allow me to apologize for the elitist, arrogant morons who mistreated you earlier. I hope you get more familiar with Linux and grow to love it the way we do.
Cheers.
the scene of one of the more recent alleged plots that was uncovered by an informant. It's important to keep these things in perspective. A student informing law enforcement about a credible threat is not anti-democratic, or un-american, or even immoral. In fact, it's illegal not to report a crime (conspiracy to commit murder?) The catch here is that the informer needs to act responsibly as well. How do you teach students to tell the difference between a credible threat overheard in the lunchroom, and a normal episode of teen angst? Who knows? I wish there were an easy answer. I don't know if the kids in Hoyt were really going to do anything. I have my doubts that they really would have carried it off; but the fact remains that they were making detailed plans to do so. It is hard, then, for me to condemn the person who reported them. And if I have to choose between the suspects' rights to free speech, and the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the other students, their potential victims, are entitled to, then I'll have to choose the greater society's rights first. The suspects acted, if not criminally, at least horribly irresposibly. The unavoidable fact is that there have been some killings. Regardless of whether or not they were overpublicized, or even glorified, they were real. This is the world we live in. If you're disillusioned and angry, know that the people around you may not look the other way when they see or hear your threats. Just the threat itself is likely to bring serious consequences. If you're a potential informer, be correct. Being wrong may bring serious consequences. In the end, this discussion really isn't about big brother or oppression; it's about looking out for eachother as responsibly as we can.
Re:Katz writes about things without having 2 clues
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 1
I think you missed the point he was trying to make. And though I probably would have worded it differently, I have to agree with him. The girl at the lunch counter isn't necessarily there because she's lazy and unmotivated. Anybody who really believes that sort of drivel has been locked away too long with their $500.00 computer. We in the tech industry are almost obscenely optimistic in terms of what can be accomplished; but the real problems in the world are more complex than the simple programs we crank out between pizza deliveries. You sound young to me. Your perspective sounds very young and uninitiated. Saving up the money you made from sweeping sawdust, so you could buy a computer, hardly qualifies as a method of pulling yourself up out of the normal world, and into ours.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you allow that the project will cost NASA some money, it's well spent. More interest and participation means that people might vote more space-friendly congressmen into office, which might increase the budget. Aside from just being a good thing to do, it may also be financially shrewd.
My reply to your earlier copy of this post was legitimate. But posting it twice is such a ridiculous troll that it deserves a trollish reply: While I truly do like linux (RHCE, and use it at home/office, etc.) I also like FreeBSD. We're rolling out FreeBSD on all of our border servers (mail, dns, ftp, etc.) because it's faster, and more secure. It's not dying, no matter how big an ass you make of yourself. Shout it as loud and as long as you like, I don't think it's going to "die." It may be dwindling; but that often happens to things when the public becomes less discriminating.
This keeps getting said... and said... and said. Who knows, perhaps it will someday happen. I hope not. FreeBSD is a VERY capable system. It has a nice footprint, nice performance, and nice security features. It has a certain purity to it that I wish linux had. It isn't trying to be everything to everyone. It might be that it's suffering because of this. Despite continual predictions of its demise, however, new versions keep showing up, which gives me hope. I just wish we didn't have to bash it every time it showed up in a story. What's the point of that?
Without wanting to sound as if I'm supporting the liberal democrats, I think something needs to be pointed out here. We have made it a national pastime to blame new administrations for failures they inherit from previous administrations. Like it or not, there's a learning curve to all of the top positions in an administration that seems to last in earnest for about 6 months. Janet Reno didn't plan the raid in Waco, or even the response. She deferred to people with tactical training and experience. Remember, she got that job because she's an attorney, not a commando. She simply signed off on things as they came by. That may have been unwise; but if you actually do look at the evidence, it appears to be more a case of her deferring to her "experts" than of some evil plot.
The original poster is taking a bit of a beating on this subject; but I have to say that I couldn't agree more. Most of the vocal slashdot crowd lacks any ability to draw reasonable limits on anything. I wish life were that simple "censhorship bad!"; but the fact is that you have to censor your kids. To say that nothing proves anything emotionally damages your kids is not far from saying that any kid should be exposed to anything that comes along of any kind. Come on. We're smarter people than that. It's so basic and elemental, and obvious when you have a child. Let's chuck the black/white idealism of the issue for a moment and look at reality. The amount of censorship, and the type, change with your child. As they grow they become more capable of understanding certain aspects of life. Some of those things will happen sooner than you would think, some later. Take, for instance, the porn debate going on in this thread. Some are saying "What's the big deal if your 11 year-old sees two people screwing? Big deal." For some children, you may be right; but I would prefer to discuss sex with her before she goes and sees a porn movie which depicts sex as nothing more than an evening's entertainment. If I try to describe it after, I have an awful hard task to make my spoken arguments compete with the graphic visuals of the movie. Especially when the porn is available 24/7, and I'm only available when I'm not working. Let's get real, most of raising your child could be construed as censorship in one form or another: "Don't touch that. No no. Don't go in there. Sweetheart, when you're a little older..." It's been that way since long before computers.
Tempestdata is correct. If I've expended time, energy, and resources (including money), why shouldn't I try to keep the employee? I don't mean by chaining them to their desk; but it may just be a financial reality that I can't afford to pay them what they guy across town can, and would rather not have the new employee "bought" away now that I've spent some of the fewer resources I have training and nurturing them. Dancclark, don't act like the workers are all altruistic angels who suffer as slaves beaten down by the man. That's just not the whole picture of reality. If I'm a decent boss, and I treat you well (including a decent salary, and training to further you), why can't I expect a little loyalty. And why can't I take such simple steps as blurring your face on television to keep the guys with deeper pockets from purchasing you, after I've made you what you are (assuming, of course, that I actually have made you what you are)?
Why is it good if a hacker/cracker can use technicalities of the law to get away with something wrong/immoral; but bad if the FBI uses technicalities of the law to accomplish something just? Isn't this the way we'd rather have the FBI behave? I think so. It's more public/reviewable than some other tactics.
This is an age old question that has actually been around longer than computers have. The answer is that almost anything (tech/reading/science/auto mechanics) can make you more intelligent if it is used in an educational manner. The opposite is also true. All the mensa primers in the world won't help a kid who doesn't use them in an educational way. As for the comment about late 70's, early 80's geeks now being smarter and the heads of international corporations, there are a lot of international corps. headed by decidedly non-technical people. Intelligence presents itself in many different ways. It isn't a "if you're tech, your smart/ if you're not, you're less than smart" kind of proposition. It's all about how you do the things you do. There is just as much intellectual stimulation in the natural world as there is on the internet. Don't confuse information for intelligence.
Give the guy a break. He's trying to make a living. Don't any of the rest of us have real jobs? Of course we do. I've used a lot of open source/GPL'ed stuff at work that was inferior to commercial products because it was free. He's got a point. And even if you disagree with his point, it doesn't mean you have to villify him. Geez. Are we that immature?
There has to be something he could do around there. He could be handy, mending a fuse, when their lights have gone.
Just wait 'til Dennis Conner gets word of this! And we thought the airfoiled cat was contraversial!
I agree. I recently e-mailed one of my senators about a senate resolution regarding computer security. I got a lucid and obviously singular response. It wasn't a form letter, and though I'm sure the signature at the bottom was automated, I at least felt as if he or somebody representative of him had responded. I think it's disingenuous to say that they're ignoring their constituents who e-mail them.
Look. I'm all for open-sourcing almost anything. But I fly an airplane that often uses gps as it's primary method of navigation; and I'm afraid I just don't want you anywhere near it. It's real. I truly am moving 200 knots, 2 miles up; and losing my navigational equipment can be a bonafide crisis. I don't want any screwball hacker fscking up the system. You don't have any right to impact my life that way. So just back down from this one.
School is used generically and is accepted to mean any educational institution. A University and College are generally used interchangeably as well, being your "place that can grant degrees," though I'm sure some anal-retentive slashdotter will have to elaborate on that for you. An undergraduate university would be one that offers only a bachelor's degree, as opposed to masters, phd, etc. A State School as used in the interview, refers to a University which is funded in large part, by the state. Many states have a policy, for instance, that a state resident is guaranteed acceptance to a state university, regardless of their performance on the entrance-type exams we use in the U.S. The thought is that you can educate the local population, and they will remain in the area, and contribute, etc. High School is the 4-year school preceding Collegiate studies. Attendance at high school is generally mandatory, at least to the age of 16, where university studies are, of course, entirely voluntary, unless you want a real job, etc. Hope this helps.
The only thing that really bothers me about RMS is this little thing of: If you don't absolutely agree with me, you're not a "thinking" person. He seems to think that anybody with a different opinion is unintelligent. At the same time, he seems to spend more time arguing semantics than anything substantive. Maybe I'm just popping off because I'm a little tired of it; but does anybody see RMS ever so slowly slipping toward irrelevance? That would be a shame. He's given a lot, and has a lot to offer.
That you've had so much trouble getting help from the Linux community. It sometimes makes me sick, the way we treat people. You're getting some good advice from the replies to your post, so just allow me to apologize for the elitist, arrogant morons who mistreated you earlier. I hope you get more familiar with Linux and grow to love it the way we do. Cheers.
Dumass isn't a word... dumbass.
the scene of one of the more recent alleged plots that was uncovered by an informant. It's important to keep these things in perspective. A student informing law enforcement about a credible threat is not anti-democratic, or un-american, or even immoral. In fact, it's illegal not to report a crime (conspiracy to commit murder?) The catch here is that the informer needs to act responsibly as well. How do you teach students to tell the difference between a credible threat overheard in the lunchroom, and a normal episode of teen angst? Who knows? I wish there were an easy answer. I don't know if the kids in Hoyt were really going to do anything. I have my doubts that they really would have carried it off; but the fact remains that they were making detailed plans to do so. It is hard, then, for me to condemn the person who reported them. And if I have to choose between the suspects' rights to free speech, and the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the other students, their potential victims, are entitled to, then I'll have to choose the greater society's rights first. The suspects acted, if not criminally, at least horribly irresposibly. The unavoidable fact is that there have been some killings. Regardless of whether or not they were overpublicized, or even glorified, they were real. This is the world we live in. If you're disillusioned and angry, know that the people around you may not look the other way when they see or hear your threats. Just the threat itself is likely to bring serious consequences. If you're a potential informer, be correct. Being wrong may bring serious consequences. In the end, this discussion really isn't about big brother or oppression; it's about looking out for eachother as responsibly as we can.
I think you missed the point he was trying to make. And though I probably would have worded it differently, I have to agree with him. The girl at the lunch counter isn't necessarily there because she's lazy and unmotivated. Anybody who really believes that sort of drivel has been locked away too long with their $500.00 computer. We in the tech industry are almost obscenely optimistic in terms of what can be accomplished; but the real problems in the world are more complex than the simple programs we crank out between pizza deliveries. You sound young to me. Your perspective sounds very young and uninitiated. Saving up the money you made from sweeping sawdust, so you could buy a computer, hardly qualifies as a method of pulling yourself up out of the normal world, and into ours.